*************************************************************** THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.virtual.co.il/torah/tanach] In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag *************************************************************** PARSHAT TERUMAH [5758] Had it not been for CHET HA'EGEL, would Bnei Yisrael have needed a MISHKAN? Many claim that the answer to this 'philosophical' question lies in the famous 'exegetic' controversy between RASHI and RAMBAN concerning WHEN the commandment to build the Mishkan was originally given to Moshe, i.e. BEFORE or AFTER the sin of the golden calf. In this week's shiur, as we study this controversy and its ramifications, we will show how the answer to this question is not so simple. While doing so, we will also try to make some sense out of the confusing topic of "ein mukdam u'meuchar ba'Torah" (chronological order in Chumash). INTRODUCTION - FOUR UNITS To understand the reason for this controversy between Rashi and Ramban, it is important to recognize how the last half of Sefer Shmot neatly divides into FOUR distinct units. In last week's shiur, we defined and discussed the first of these four units - chapters 19->24, better known as MA'AMAD HAR SINAI. Chapters 25->31 [i.e. Parshiot Terumah, Tezaveh, and the first half of Ki-tisa] also form a distinct unit, for this entire section relates exclusively to God's commandment to build the Mishkan. In a similar manner, chapters 32->34 [i.e. the 2nd half of Ki-tisa] also form a distinct unit, for they describe the events surrounding the incident of CHET HA'EGEL. Finally, chapters 35->40 [Parshiot Va'yakhel/Pekudei] also form a distinct unit, for they describe how the Mishkan was built. The following table reviews these four units: CHAPTERS TOPIC (PARSHA) -------- ------ ----------- (A) 19-24 MA'AMAD HAR SINAI (YITRO/MISHPATIM) (the FIRST LUCHOT) (B) 25-31 THE COMMANDMENT TO BUILD THE MISHKAN (TERUMAH/ TEZAVEH) (C) 32-34 CHET HA'EGEL (KI-TISA) (the SECOND LUCHOT) (D) 35-40 BUILDING THE MISHKAN (VA'YAKHEL/PEKUDEI) Using the above table, it is very easy to understand Rashi's statement that God's commandment to build the Mishkan came after chet ha'egel (see Rashi on 31:8). Rashi simply takes the entire unit of 'B', and places it after 'C'. In contrast, Ramban argues that Chumash records these parshiot in their proper chronological order [i.e. A->B->C->D]. At first glance, Ramban's opinion appears to be most logical. Nonetheless, Rashi disagrees. To fully appreciate Rashi's opinion, we must first explain why Ramban's opinion makes so much more sense. THE FIRST FORTY DAYS - FOR WHAT? Recall that at the conclusion of Parshat Mishpatim [i.e. the end of Unit (A)], Moshe ascends Har Sinai to receive the LUCHOT, TORAH, & MITZVAH (see 24:12). The LUCHOT, we know, are the tablets upon which God inscribes the Ten Commandments. However, it is not quite clear what the words TORAH & MITZVAH refer to. [To prove this, simply note how many different opinions are found among the commentators on 24:12!] Using the above chart, there appears to be a very easy answer to this question. If we simply follow the narrative in order, then the TORAH & MITZVAH mentioned in 24:12 must be UNIT B! In other words, 24:12-18 tells us how Moshe ascends Har Sinai to receive the TORAH & MITZVAH; then 25:1 continues by explaining what God told Moshe, and those commandments continue until the end of chapter 31. [For those of you familiar with computers, this is similar to the concept of 'WYSIWYG' - What You See Is What You Get. What the Torah records when Moshe goes up - is exactly what Moshe received at that time.] Furthermore, considering that Moshe ascends Har Sinai to receive the LUCHOT that will be placed in the ARON, then it is only logical that the TORAH & MITZVAH refer to the laws of the MISHKAN which serves as the 'housing' for the ARON! Finally, considering that God informs Moshe that he will continue to tell over His mitzvot from the KERUVIM once the Mishkan is assembled (see 25:21-22), its makes a lot of sense that the laws of the MISHKAN are the first and ONLY set of mitzvot that Moshe receives during those forty days! Therefore, if we follow the strict chronological order of Chumash, Moshe ascends Har Sinai for the first forty days for ONE plain and simple purpose: to receive the LUCHOT and the MITZVOT that are necessary to build the Mishkan that will house it. Despite the simplicity of this approach, there are two very good reasons why none of the commentators advance it: * First of all, it doesn't make sense that it would take an entire FORTY DAYS for God to teach Moshe just the laws of the MISHKAN. There must have been something else as well. * There are many other sources later in Chumash that imply that there were many other mitzvot given to Moshe Rabeinu on Har Sinai, such as Parshat Behar (see Vayikra 25:1 and the mitzvot in Sefer Devarim (see 5:1-28 and 6:1). For these reasons, the commentators must explain why specifically the laws of the Mishkan are recorded at this point in Sefer Shmot, even though many other mitzvot were given to Moshe during those forty days. Ramban (see 25:1) offers a very comprehensive 'pro-Mishkan' approach. Using both textual and thematic proofs, Ramban claims that the Mishkan serves as a vehicle to perpetuate the experience of MA'AMAD HAR SINAI; and therefore it is the FIRST mitzvah that Moshe receives when he ascends for forty days. Even though Moshe received other mitzvot at that time (see Ramban on 24:12), Sefer Shmot focusses specifically on the Mishkan for it reflects the special level that Bnei Yisrael attain when they accepted God's covenant at Har Sinai. Furthermore, at the focal point of the Mishkan lies the ARON containing the LUCHOT - the symbol of that covenant at HAR SINAI; while on top of the ARON are the KERUVIM, from where God will now convey to Moshe the remaining mitzvot. This explains not only why the MISHKAN follows Har Sinai, but also why building the ARON and KERUVIM are the FIRST commandment in this unit. TO summarize Ramban's approach we will quote a few lines from his commentary [but it is highly recommended that you read the entire Ramban inside]: "After God had given the Ten Commandments DIRECTLY to Yisrael and instructed them with a sampling of the mitzvot (i.e. Parshat Mishpatim)... and Bnei Yisrael accepted these laws and entered a covenant (24:1-11)... behold they became His nation and He became their God, as was originally stipulated [at Brit Milah and Har Sinai]... Now they are worthy to have a house - His dwelling - in their midst dedicated to His Name, and there HE WILL SPEAK WITH MOSHE and COMMAND BNEI YISRAEL... Now the 'secret' ("sod") of the Mishkan is that God's GLORY ("kavod") which dwelled on HAR SINAI will now dwell [instead] on the MISHKAN "b'nistar" [in a more hidden manner, in contrast to Har Sinai]... (see Ramban 25:1.) RASHI'S APPROACH Despite the beauty and attraction of Ramban's shita, Rashi claims exactly the opposite (see 31:18): that the Commandment to build the Mishkan was given AFTER, and BECAUSE of Chet Ha'egel, i.e. the parshiot are NOT in chronological order! In fact, Rashi claims that during the first forty days Moshe received ALL of the mitzvot of the Torah EXCEPT the laws of the MISHKAN! [In other words, using our original chart A>C>B>D; or using our computer mashal - WYSIWYDG - What You See Is What You DON'T Get!] At first, this interpretation seems rather absurd. Why should the Torah record at this specific point in Chumash the mitzvot which Moshe DID NOT receive at this time, while omitting all the mitzvot which He DID receive at this time! What leads Rashi to this conclusion? To answer this question, we must first explain the exegetic principle of "ein mukdam u'meuchar ba'Torah" [literally: there is NO ORDER in the sequence of parshiot in the Torah]. Even though it is often misunderstood, this principle does not imply that the order in Chumash is RANDOM. Rather, it simply means that order in which Chumash records its parshiot does not necessarily reflect their chronological. [Most commentators, and especially many of the Midrashim quoted by Rashi, employ this approach. Nevertheless, RAMBAN consistently disagrees with this assumption. He argues that Chumash DOES follow in CHRONOLOGICAL order. Unless a certain technical detail 'forces' him say otherwise, he always assumes that the order in which Chumash is written reflects the precise chronological order of the events as they took place.] The principle of "ein mukdam u'meuchar" implies that when Moshe received the Torah in its final form in the fortieth year (see Devarim 31:25-26), its "parshiot" were organized in thematic order, and not necessarily in chronological order. In doing so, the Torah conveys its message not only by the content of each "parshia", but also by intentionally juxtaposing certain parshiot together. [See Chizkuni on Shmot 34:32 for this precise explanation.] Rashi follows this exegetic approach. He assumes that Chumash (at times) may prefer a THEMATIC order instead of a chronological one. Therefore, sometimes for the slightest thematic reason, Rashi will often explain that a certain "parshia" was actually given at an earlier or later time. With this background we can return to explain Rashi's approach. Rashi, employing the principle of "ein mukdam u'muchar" begins with thematic considerations. Rashi cannot overlook the glaring similarities between the construction of the Mishkan and CHET HA'EGEL. Is it just by chance that: * Bnei Yisrael must collectively donate their gold to build the Mishkan (compare 25:1-2, 32:2-3); * Bezallel, Chur's grandson, is chosen to build the Mishkan. [Rashi follows the Midrash which claims that Chur was killed because he refused to allow Bnei Yisrael to build the EGEL. (See Chizkuni 31:2.)] * The opening pasuk concerning the Mishkan - "and they shall make for Me a MIKDASH and I will DWELL IN THEIR MIDST" (25:8) - appears to RECTIFY Bnei Yisrael's situation in the aftermath of Chet ha'egel when Moshe must move his tent (called the OHEL MOED) far away - OUTSIDE the CAMP (33:7)! * Aharon must bring a PAR (a bull/ an EGEL is a baby bull) for a CHATAT offering during the Mishkan's dedication ceremony. [A Aharon must bring a CHATAT, it implies that he had sinned. See Rashi 29:1.] Because of these thematic considerations, Rashi explains that the commandment to build the MISHKAN was given AFTER chet ha'egel (during the last forty days) for it served as a form of atonement for that sin. [Nevertheless, it remains unclear according to Rashi WHY the Torah chose record these parshiot out of chronological order. We'll return to this question later in the shiur.] L'CHAT'CHILA or B'DI'AVAD? It is very tempting to consider this dispute between Rashi and Ramban as a fundamental argument in regard to the Mishkan. Clearly, according to Ramban, the Mishkan is "l'chatchila" [ideal]. In other words, even had it not been for "chet ha'egel", it would have been desirable for Bnei Yisrael to have a MISHKAN - i.e. a physical representation of His presence. How about Rashi? Can we infer from his interpretation that the Mishkan is "b'di'avad" [a compromise]. In other words, had it not been for chet ha'egel, would there never have been a mitzvah to build a MIKDASH? Is it only in its aftermath that God realizes the people's need for a physical representation. Despite the temptation of this conclusion, we will prove that even according to Rashi's opinion, one CAN (and MUST) agree that it was indeed God's original intention that at least some form of physical symbol be used to represent Him. TEMPLE TERMINOLOGY To reconcile Rashi's interpretation with Ramban's explanation of the Mishkan we must differentiate between two concepts: (1) MISHKAN, and (2) MIKDASH. Even though both words describe a SANCTUARY dedicated to the worship of God, for the sake of clarity, each word (in our explanation that follows) will be given a more specific meaning. * The MISHKAN is a TEMPORARY Sanctuary (a Tabernacle), a portable tent-like structure. [Good for travel.] * The MIKDASH is a PERMANENT Sanctuary (a Temple), such as the massive stone structure built by King Solomon. We posit that both Rashi and Ramban must agree that the concept of a Sanctuary, a symbol of God's SHCHINA (the divine presence) dwelling with Bnei Yisrael is "l'chatchila", for it is a fundamental theme throughout the entire Tanach. To prove this, we must return to some basic concepts that we discussed in our shiurim on Sefer Breishit. Recall that we first encountered the theme of MIKDASH when Avraham Avinu builds a MIZBAYACH in BET-EL and calls out in God's Name (see 12:8 & 13:4). Later, at this same site, Yaakov Avinu awakes from his dream and makes a vow: "Alas, this is the site for a BET ELOKIM, for it is the gate to the heavens." (Br.28:17) At that time, Yaakov made a vow that upon his return he will transform the site of his "matzeyva" (monument) into a BET-ELOKIM - a House for God. [See Breishit 28:17-22!] [Even in "shirat ha'yam", as Bnei Yisrael cross the Red Sea, they are already singing of their goal of setting up a MIKDASH as soon as they arrive in the land of their inheritance. See Shmot 15:17 "t'viyamo... MIKDASH, Hashem kon'nu yodechu..." ] Parshat Mishpatim provides conclusive proof that the basic concept of a BET-ELOKIM is totally unrelated to the events of Chet ha'egel. [Recall that even Rashi (on 31:18) claims that Parshat Mishpatim was given during the first forty days, and thus BEFORE Chet Ha'egel takes place.] Towards the end of Parshat Mishpatim, we find the mitzvah of "aliyah la'regel" to VISIT God three times a year. "Three times a year you shall celebrate for Me... Keep Chag ha'Matzot... and do not VISIT ME empty-handed... Three times a year all your males SHALL APPEAR BEFORE ME... " (23:14-17) Without some type of sanctuary representing God, this mitzvah of "aliyah l'regel" could not be fulfilled! The next pasuk provides final proof that this sanctuary corresponds to the concept of a BET-ELOKIM: "Your first fruits, must be brought to BET HASHEM ELOKECHA - the HOUSE of your God - ...." (23:19) Based on the above analysis, even Rashi must agree that the need for a BET-ELOKIM has nothing to do with Chet Ha'egel. Therefore, this is no reason why Rashi would not agree with Ramban's explanation that the PRIMARY purpose of the Mishkan/Mikdash is to serve as a physical symbol of God's presence through which Bnei Yisrael can relive their experience at Har Sinai. Instead, their dispute over WHEN the commandment to build the Mishkan relates to a less fundamental issue concerning the need for Bnei Yisrael to have a TEMPORARY sanctuary BEFORE they enter Eretz Canaan. According to Rashi, had Bnei Yisrael not sinned at Chet ha'egel, there would have no reason to build a TEMPORARY Mishkan in the desert. Instead, Bnei Yisrael could have simply waited a few more months and built a PERMANENT Mikdash as soon as they conquered the Land. Ramban would argue that even had Bnei Yisrael not sinned, the still would have been a need for a temporary MIKDASH. Let's explain why. THE WAY IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN According to Rashi, one could explain that based on God's original promise to help Bnei Yisrael conquer the land in a miraculous manner (see 23:20-28), the first wave of conquest should have taken a very short time. Had that been the case, there would have been no need to build a temporary Mishkan, for within a very short time it would have been possible to build a permanent Mikdash instead! After "chet ha'egel" that situation changes; for God had taken His SHCHINA away from the camp. Therefore, Bnei Yisrael must first do something in order to bring the SHCHINA back to the camp BEFORE they can conquer the Land. Hence, according to Rashi, the actual process of building the Mishkan could be considered a spiritually rehabilitative project. Furthermore, it provides Aharon and Bnei Yisrael with the opportunity to build a sanctuary where they can offer korbanot to find atonement for their sin. One could also suggest that due to "chet ha'egel", and the 'lower level' of the "malach" that will lead them into the land (see Shmot 33:1-5 and shiur on 13 Midot), it may now take a much longer time until Bnei Yisrael finish conquering the land. Therefore, a temporary Mikdash [= Mishkan] is required until a more permanent Mikdash can be built. A THEMATIC JUXTAPOSITION According to this interpretation, we can now understand why (according to Rashi) the Torah places the commandment to build the Mishkan out of its chronological order! Even though the mitzvah to build the Mishkan should have been recorded AFTER the story of Chet ha'egel, the Torah intentionally records it earlier - immediately after Ma'amad Har Sinai - IN ORDER to emphasize the thematic connection between Matan Torah and the Mishkan/Mikdash. Hence, Rashi can reach the very same conclusion as Ramban in regard to the importance of a MIKDASH - "l'chatchila"! Now that Rashi makes so much sense, what doesn't Ramban agree? To answer this question, we must return to our discussion of the various approaches to "mukdam u'muchar". Ramban prefers his principle that Chumash follows chronological order. Despite the thematic similarities listed above, none of them are convincing enough to cause him to change the order of these Parshiot. Therefore, Ramban maintains that even had it not been for Chet Ha'egel there still would have been a need for a temporary Mishkan. One could suggest a very simple reason for the immediate need of a temporary sanctuary: As we explained earlier, since Bnei Yisrael must still receive many more mitzvot from God, a Mishkan - with the ARON and KERUVIM at its center - is necessary to provide the medium through which God can convey the remaining mitzvot to Moshe. Furthermore, once the SHCHINA dwelled upon Har Sinai, some sort of vehicle is necessary to 'carry it' with them as they travel from Har Sinai towards Eretz Canaan. [Accordingly, Ramban explains that most all the mitzvot recorded in Sefer Vayikra and Sefer Bamidbar were actually given from the Ohel Moed (Mishkan). See Ramban Vayikra 1:1 & 7:38. In regard to Sefer Devarim see Ramban on 24:1 & 24:12] To summarize, the dispute between Rashi and the Ramban stems from their different exegetic approaches and pertains only to WHY a TEMPORARY Mishkan was necessary. However, both would agree that it would have been necessary to build a PERMANENT Mikdash even if Bnei Yisrael had not sinned at Chet ha'egel. Our shiur on Parshat Tezaveh will analyze the internal structure of this unit of chapters 25->31 in order to uncover additional parallels between the MISHKAN and the events which took place during Ma'amad Har Sinai. Till then, shabbat shalom menachem -------------------------- FOR FURTHER IYUN: A. See Seforno on Shmot 20:21 and 31:18. Relate this shita to the concepts developed in this week's shiur. 1. Must Seforno maintain that there would have been a permanent Mikdash had Bnei Yisrael not sinned? If so, what would it have looked like? How does this relate to Yaakov's neder? 2. How does the MIZBAYACH relate to the MIKDASH? Relate to the Matzeyvot and Mizbayach in 24:4-7! B. Read Devarim chapter 12. Note the repeated use of phrase "ha'makom asher yivchar Hashem" and its context. 1. Relate this phrase to the concept of a PERMANENT Mikdash, as discussed in the above shiur. 2. Considering that Sefer Devarim contains the mitzvot which God originally gave Moshe at har Sinai (before chet ha'egel), how could this explain why Sefer Devarim makes no mention of the MISHKAN, yet mentions "ha'makom asher yivchar Hashem" numerous times. C. Although the Rambam did not write a commentary on Chumash, we can infer his understanding of certain psukim based on his psak halacha in Mishne Torah. The opening Rambam in Hilchot Beit Ha'bchira (Sefer Avodah) defines the source of the commandment to build a MIKDASH (see 1:1). Read that Rambam (and if you have time, the first five halachot). 1. What is difficult about the Rambam's wording in 1:1? What is the source of our obligation to build a MIKDASH? 2. Why, according to the Rambam, is the phrase "v'asu li Mikdash" (25:8) not sufficient enough a source to learn that we must build a Mikdash? 3. Why does the Rambam include the criteria - 'ready to offer upon it korbanot' and 'to celebrate there THREE times a year'? Can you relate these phrases to Shmot 23:14-19 and this week's shiur? 4. Why does the Rambam quote the pasuk from Devarim 12:9-11? Read those psukim carefully!